Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Do you need another reason to quit smoking?


     Many campaigns run by public health organizations grab attention by pulling at one of our strongest emotions -- fear. However, the efficacy of these fear appeal tactics has been highly debated and, although no solid conclusion has been reached, the most grotesque ads may actually have a negative effect in convincing people to quit smoking.

     This infographic from cancer.org is informative and attention grabbing, and at the same time not so revolting that smokers block the message completely from their minds by taking another drag. Focusing on the benefits of quitting rather than the harms of continued use could make this ad is more powerful than the horrifying TV commercials we have all seen. However, looking at this graphic critically, I do have some comments and questions regarding the content and design choices.



     First, making a spelling error in the title of an infographic is an easy way to lose retention quicker than it takes to strike a match. Somker? I have seen many creative fonts used to add style and lead a viewer's eye, but if a font is so obscure that you don't catch errors right away then it probably is too obscure for visual consumers.

     Second, all of the actual information in the graphic is presented via text. Is this media vastly different from bullet points on a presentation? By using smaller images and a highlight color instead of verbose sentences many viewers, who might have chosen to walk away and light-up, will stick around long enough to learn the benefits that come 15 years after quitting.

     Finally, a timeline is a very useful tool to convey information so quickly that it is subconscious, so why not extend the guidelines to present the timeline to scale? Maybe it was the designer's tough choice between form and function. Personally, I believe form follows function. What do you believe?  

Thursday, October 31, 2013

US High Schools

This past June Newsweek released their annual list of top high schools in the US. I was disappointed to see that my high school alma mater did not even make the top 2,000. After researching some state-wide high school statistics for a few of the metrics that Newsweek used to generate their list, I found some interesting deviations from what I had expected. Although the data I found was not the most up-to-date it is still relevant enough to raise some questions about how this discrepancy occurred.


Monday, September 30, 2013

Jeopardy Gender Splits

I recently created a graphic in collaboration with Deborah Sosin to accompany her article on gender in Jeopardy answers. Here's the graphic followed by the article full of some very provocative data that she collected:


It was Georgia O’Keeffe that put me over the edge. “Are there no other female artists?!” I shouted at the TV, and not for the first time. Whenever an art category pops up on “Jeopardy!,” there’s Georgia, the token woman.
The more I tuned in, the more it seemed that most “Jeopardy!” clues pertained to men, not just in art but across the board. As devotees know, contestants are provided the answers and must solve the clue by asking a question. Aside from the occasional “Who is Virginia Woolf?” or Amelia Earhart, maybe an Oprah Winfrey, I detected a distinctly male chord.
Don’t get me wrong. I worship “Jeopardy!” I TiVo “Jeopardy!” I dated a “Jeopardy!” champion. I am bereft on fall Fridays, when my local station airs Patriots All-Access football coverage, thus bouncing “Jeopardy!” to 2:07 a.m. I’ve been a fan since Art Fleming hosted in the 1960s. Twice I’ve been in the contestant pool — one among the thousands who qualify but don’t actually get picked to appear. I hope to make it on before Alex Trebek retires in 2016.
So I’m the last one to criticize this icon of quiz shows, especially if it means I’d be booted at my next audition. But last spring, after one too many Georgias, I became obsessed with finding out if the “Jeopardy!” clues are truly gender-biased or if it was all in my boomer-feminist imagination.
I printed out a pile of blank charts with six boxes across and five down each, to represent the Single and Double “Jeopardy!” boards. I left space at the bottom for Final. Every night, I sat in front of the TV, pen in hand. For 18 episodes, I tracked every category and every answer. That’s 60 regular answers per show, for a grand total of 1,080. Out of those, I isolated the ones that could reasonably have either a male or female answer, like “Poets,” “Comic Strip Characters,” or “U.S. Senators.” Of the 1,080 possible answers, a total of 251 fell into this category.
Now, here’s the kicker. Of those 251 possible answers, only 52 were female; 199 were male. That’s about 25 percent female to 75 percent male. (And that’s mostly white males. I didn’t even venture down the race road. That’s a whole other survey.)
I’ll show you what I mean. “Authors” appeared on two consecutive shows. That’s ten chances for female representation. But who did we get? Washington Irving, Aldous Huxley, Marcel Proust, Tom Stoppard, Jack Finney, Walt Whitman, Arthur Clarke, Mo Willems, and the Brothers Grimm. Maya Angelou was the sole woman. The score? Males 9, females 1.
For “Lines from Oscar Roles,” I noted quotes from Gordon Gekko, Forrest Gump, Don Corleone, Jake LaMotta, and the stuttering King George VI. You’d think they’d come up with one female clue. What about Scarlett O’Hara’s “As God is my witness, I’ll never go hungry again,” or Cher’s memorable “Snap out of it!” as Loretta Castorini in “Moonstruck”? And I didn’t even have to consult IMDb for those. In that same episode, guess how many women just happened to appear in a category called “Someone’s in the Kitchen”? Four out of five. (Uncle Ben was the fifth.) Ouch.
So who’s minding the “Jeopardy!” desk anyway? As it turns out, mostly men. Michele Loud (editorial supervisor) and Debbie Griffin (related to the creator, Merv?) are the only two women on the show’s current slate of nine writers. Suzanne Stone (research supervisor) is the lone woman among five men listed on the research team, according to the show’s website.
Now, one could argue that there are simply more famous men than women. Maybe I should accept that for centuries women were in the kitchen, whereas men were free to create stuff, explore places, and build things. You don’t hear much about Mrs. Columbus or Mrs. Debussy, come to think of it. So maybe it’s unfair to expect that women should be represented equally on quiz shows.
But what about categories where women easily come to mind? Like when “1960s TV” popped up one night, I instantly conjured Jeannie, Samantha, Gidget, Agent 99, Diahann Carroll, Mary Tyler Moore, Dinah Shore, and Donna Reed (I’m a boomer, remember). Instead we got a five-for-five male roster: Batman, the Grinch, “Bonanza, Maxwell Smart, and Dick Van Dyke.
I’ll give the writers points for naming Helen Keller and Betty Friedan as clues under “Phi Beta Kappa.” But then, on the same board, under “End of Story,” it was back to the boys: Hemingway, “Animal Farm,” “Return of the King,” “Around the World in 80 Days,” and “Slaughterhouse Five.” The total for that entire board? Two out of 15.
The next day, would there be redemption in “U.S. Novelists”? No chance. Harper Lee stood on her own alongside Mario Puzo, Sinclair Lewis, Horatio Alger, and Michael Chabon. And for “Pulitzer Biographies” on the same show? Zip. Nada. Not a one, although Eleanor Roosevelt was at least half a subject in Joseph Lash’s “Eleanor and Franklin.” Couldn’t they toss a bone to Doris Kearns Goodwin? Duly noted: A few shows later, in “Bestseller Titles,” Doris got credit for “Team of Rivals.”
For “Quotes Filled with Booze,” I guess I’m grateful no women showed up. “Diseases Named for People”? Think Parkinson, Hodgkin, Tay-Sachs. All men. Maybe Yvonne Barr of the Epstein-Barr virus could’ve snuck in for half a point? “20th-century Senators” went zero for five; ditto for “‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Music.” Those three categories appeared on the same Double “Jeopardy!” board on April 2, for a total of zero for 15. Double ouch.
The writers were more genderly generous with “Ivy League Alma Maters,” tipping their scholarly hat to Queen Noor and Brooke Shields (Princeton), Jodie Foster (Yale), and Maggie Gyllenhaal and Anna Paquin (Columbia), for three out of five. Only two other three-for-five women-to-men results appeared during my survey period, including “I’ll Take Your Character,” where we got Jane Austen, Hedda Gabler, and Cosette.
Here’s a twist: Under “Monograms of the Famous and Infamous,” Joyce Carol Oates was dubbed a “prolific female author” (emphasis mine). Would the contestants have identified “JCO” without the gender cue? The week after my survey, a category called “Authoress! Authoress!” appeared. Is it progress or regression to have a special category for female authors? And who refers to women writers as “authoresses” anyway?
What about music, where women could surely share the spotlight? Of the 35 total music-related answers in my survey, a mere four and a half related to women (the half being a clue shared by Gwen Stefani and Maroon 5, for reasons I can’t recall). As for “Music Legends,” all men.
I also created another category I called “gender specific,” to track answers exclusive to one gender, like “Country Women,” “U.S. Presidents” (so far, anyway), or “Batting Champs.” I identified a total of 12 topics in this category over the 18 episodes. Just four of those 12 related to women, or 33 percent female to male. Among them, I was excited to see one named “She Did It,” which included Sally Ride, Oprah, Elizabeth Dole, Gertrude Stein, and, you guessed it, good ol’ Georgia O’Keeffe.
All that was left to tally were the 18 Final “Jeopardy!” clues, six of which could have had male or female answers. Two of those six called for the name of a woman, or, again, about 33 percent, including “Anna Karenina” for “Classic Novels” and Eva Peron for “20th-century Names.” Even Georgia didn’t make the cut in “Artists,” ceding to Vincent van Gogh.
I stopped charting after 18 shows mostly because I hated getting so worked up. But I haven’t stopped watching. After nearly 50 years, I’m not about to abandon my love affair with “Jeopardy!,” skewed gender balance or not. Would a survey of another 18 shows yield similar statistics? Maybe I’ll try again, now that the 30th season has kicked off. But in the meantime, I’d love to see more women on the board of the best quiz show ever. How about it, writers? Mary Cassatt for $1200?

Thursday, August 15, 2013

How did I get here?

Where am I? Am I on the brink of discovering myself?

I have always been a very visual learner. I remember movies better than books and complicated geometrical relationships better than simple calculus theories. While maintaining a 3.5 gpa, I never felt like I excelled at computer science in college. All of my classes were monotone, verbose lectures with occasional chicken-scratch notes on an out-of-focus projector. Any graphic I was presented with gave little thought to aesthetics or even the logical flow of information necessary to maximize the speed and quality of comprehension. I could never seem to grasp the concepts like my peers did. They seemed to absorb these garrulous rants like the newest Bounty product. Regardless of the difficulty I endured, I still enjoyed learning how to use information and patterns to solve problems. In the moment when everything finally fell into place and my code worked and I somehow managed to creatively navigate the execution, that's why I stuck with it.

Although my major and I didn't quite fit, I persevered. While my peers were noticing ways to reduce clock cycles in sorting algorithms all I noticed were ways to improve the presented information. Should I have stuck with it? Maybe I just didn't realize I had a choice at the time, or maybe I was too scared. Either way I told myself that the "real world" would be different.

Accepting my new role as a data analyst consultant, I knew my clients would not only need the best analytic advice but they would need to be convinced through clear, user-friendly graphics. I was wrong. Ever presentation was a series of PowerPoint bar charts, and no one took a second to think that maybe there was a better way. I am here now because I want to start a revolution. I want to change the way we see and think about data. I want to help make complicated things simple and simple things beautiful.

Our lives are pretty complicated. The things we do everyday. Our relationships. Our feelings. We try to rationalize who we are by comparing ourselves to others and grouping similar traits and activities. When I turned 25, I stopped my complacency. I was done with consulting and moving toward my new life. I created the graphic below as a summary of my life to that point. I chose the things that were most important to me. This year it is an infographic about me; next year a time capsule. I have done a lot of things to get here, but there is a lot more data to come.